The Sun. — London, England, 1826-02-22 00:00:00

*Nit to be a practice more unchristianlike and brutal than even the maiming or injuring of cattle. Mr. ASHURST rose to answer the challenge which had been given to him on his entrance into the House. He, in al lusion to the bull-baiting at Thane, admitted that the Hon. information was in part correct, in part otherwise. The witness examined before thelMagistrate, stated that a very furious mischievous dog, who had been tied up from the sport, had broken loose, and fastened on the bull's tongue, and tore oilsa piece of the tongue. This witness denied having seen the tongue cut out, or put on a plate as described. He had not committed or convicted the party accused, because he did not consider bull-baiting to be a crime, nor could he do so as long AS he knew that grants of land were held, as in the case of the Bachelors' Ace at Windsor.; also at Ntrokiugham and Stam ford, on condition of baiting a bull at certain seasons. . Mr. MARTIN said if there were a doubt on the subject he would set it to rest by printing the opinion of the Attorney general tomorrow, for the benefit of the Chairman and Bench of Oxfordshire Magistrates. The Arc olt N :Y-GENERA b said he should not op- T , ose the Hon. Member's addressing the House to *thew how . •ar the Bill in existence required amendment. Such a course was perfectly consistent, even supposing he did not intend to support the 11111 when introduced. The Honourable Member for Dovetseemed to labour under a mistake as to the subject which he thought the Bill should embrace. There was no doubt that prize fighting was illegal by the present laws of the country, and punishable. lie should not oppose the motion, nor was he at all disposed to countenance cruelty even to the brute creation. He felt it, however, an unsafe mode of legislation to rely on alleged cases of cruelty, and it would be much snore unsafe in the present instance, where the facts, as suited by the lion. Member, were controverted and disproved by the statement of the Hon. Member, to whom a reference had been made in the course of the debate.—Leave was given to bring in the Bill. • SMALL TITHE S . Mr. SYKES moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the 7th and lith of King William, for the Collection of Small Tithes.—Leave was given. INSURRECTION OF SLAVES. . Mr. DENMAN ihmit i rmed his notice of motion, relative to 'slaves executed at Jamaica for revolt, frg,rn Wednesday the 3d of March, to Thursday following. MR. KEN RICK'S CASE. Mr. DENMAN then moved the Order of the Day for the - reconsideration of Mr. - Keurick's case. . In reply 'to a question from Mr. BUTTEIIWORTII, relative •-to Mr. Kenrick holding the alike of Recorder of Dover, Mr. Secretary PEEL said he had not heard of his being dis. - placed from that situation, if he held it. The duty might be done by deputy ; but it was rather extraordinary the Hon. Member, who sat for Dover, shotdd not know better than he did whether M r. Kenrick did or did not hold such a situation. _ _ Mr. DEN 31AN stated that Mr. limit: k held no such office. There was in Dover the ollice u 1 High Steward which was pedlar, that which he held. ' The SPEAKER. inquired whether Mr. lie:wick and his Cuumvi were in waiting. ' A n answer in the affirmative being given, the Counsel, Mr. Oua N Y and Mr. Iint.I.AND, were introduced. Mr. (1 XI it 241.: V•, in a long apceell, contended, that there wed no proof of malicious intention, on the part of Mr. Kenrick, and that the libel was not published by him, or with his authority. Mr. 1/01.T.AND on being called on, did not think it neces. nary to add any thing to what had been urged by his Learned Friend. Mr. DENMA said, that the period hail now arrived for hint to express in detail the grounds on which he thought it his ,sluty to move the resolutions with which he intended, to con clude. Ile stood forward on this occasion upon the strength of the most important constitutional principles, upon the principles which committed to that House the duty of watching over the conduct oftiudges. In former days Judges were sotnetimes op pointed to retain their situations during pleasure, and sometimes during good behaviour, till in the reign of James 1., the latter, tenure was entirely discontinued, and all Judges appointed only during pleasure. The consequence of this had been to make Judges completely subservient to the Crown. At the Revo. lution it was determined that all Judges should henceforth be appointr d upon the tenure of //rown/4 se belie gesserit, and this wholesome principle was ratified and confirmed by the:Act of . Settlement. In this situation, the tenure by which the Judges held their offices, 'continued till Ole first of the lute King, when they were made unretnoveable, notwithstanding the demise of the Crown. The power of removal formerly retained absc. lately by the Crown, could now only be exercised, upon Address from both Houses of Parliament. This then wits tl • • tenure by Which the twelve Judges of England held their seats, and the saine,was the case with respect to the Judges \Valet. The Welch Judges held their commission's under the 34th of Henry the which conferred upon them the same power $ set were popeieted: by the Twelve Judges of England, and in totitosetireat powers, they possessed within the Prim , eipality of \Vales the saute equitable jurisdiction which was exercised in England by the Court oiChancery. The huh .vidual, on whose conduct and character they were about to pronounce, was invested with tin authority in Vales similar to that of the trlntrts of King's 'Bench and Ciimhion Pleas, and -in 'addition , the further overwhelming authority of the Court of Chsticery. ' Surely where such powers were entrusted, it was , the duty of that House to watch with a' vigilant and jealous eye, over the conduct of the indiViduals to Whose hands they . 1 were committed. With respect to tlei Twelve Judges of Eng. •land, this vigilauce anti jealousy were universally admitted to %be the duty of Parliament. in the present case he was eon -fidentßiat they were equally its duty. Mr. Kenricle came be •fore them in a twotithi judicial character ; first, as one of the , Justices of his - Majesty's Court of Great Session in Wales; and, -aecOndly, as a Magistrate for the county of Surrey. He bat abio been appointed Recorder of Dover, but that appointment +bad not'yet received, and probably never night receive, the neceiitary" approbation of the Crown. Mr. kenrlek held the ()trice of a Welch Judge upon the tenure of Inamdin se Lew. oases*, therefore he could not be removed without the audio _ ray Of Parliament. It hid been very fairly'content etl I ty his . I ; Lion. and Learned Friend, that if the character of a Judge Wil.3 so stained that no Minister would have dared to appoint him, that was a sufficient cause upon which to ground the in terference of Parliament. The question then was as he had formerly stated it—entirely one of degree, and he was prepared to contend that the circumstances of this case were such, that .-if the 'louse did not interfere, it ,would be guilty of an aban (hutment of the most important of its duties. The question they had to decide was, whether the conduct of a .Judge having been such, as to destroy all public confidence in his character, to deprive him entirely , of the good opinion and respect of society, be was not thereby . rendered unlit to dis clierge the important duties of the judicial character. It WAN perfectly true, as had been stated by his Learned Friend in his eloquent speech at their bar, that libels had been published against Air. Kenrick. But did it n ut soun d strange to their care, that any Judge should apply to the Court of King's Bench for a eilmin t d inf orma ti on for a libel published against him, and be refused ? 'Phis was a fact in the case well worthy of observation ; but there was a previous fact of the greatest importance, this Judge having persecuted a poor men for stealing a shilling's worth of wood : not cnly was the man instantly acqiiitted, but the Court refused the costs of the prosecution. When Mr. Kenrick found it necessary to apply to the Court of King's Bench for a criminal information, the first step he had to take was to remove from himself by affidavit every imputation. Now undoubtedly the more atro cious the libel, the easier it must have been to deny it, and the more disposed the'"ourt must have been to grant the applica tion. lie had lok anxiously to the affidavit to see how the I,e imputations were re lied. Now what were the imputations ? They were, that Mr. Kenrick had persecuted this poor man, . awl that he had done so for the purpose of getting possession 9f a freehold which belonged to lino. Does be deny diet fact ? Ile makes no such denial. lie. evades the charge by denying diet he had ever tampered with the man's wife .te persuade . him to plead guilty. The Honourable and Learned Member then proceeded to comment on the insuf ficiency of the evidence produced against Franks. The only feet proved was, that the trumpery piece of plank had been foued upon his premises, laying. loose mid exposed to all tile world. 100 ratan with either the slightest knowledge of law, to the least portion. even of common sense, could have thought the charge worthy of attention. The Magistrate who committed Franks, must have been overpowered by the weight of Air. Kenrick's authority. The mere possession of stolen property -wits nothing. He contended, that as it was evidently an unjust , prosecution, there must be soine motive. But what m ot i ve ? It wits not denied that there bad been great negotiation about the freehold, or that Mr. Kenrick had a strong desire to obtain it, but he accounted for that desire,by his wish to get rid o f a bad d neighbour.' Let them look a little at that, the impeachment or the character of Frank* was the first thing lie resorted to, so they found it was the last. In his petition presented last night, he repeated the story of the bloody knife; but why, he would seek, if there bed been any truth in that circumstance, was it not **urn to before die Court of King's Bench? And now with re. e n d iti ct to the charge of libel. The letter addressed to Mr. Colle,tt , published the Staro,ford News, he had a right to take us l ei hrtabed with the sanction of Mr, Kenrick They were now en. gaged in the exercise of all inquisitorial rather than a judicial runt:Lion ; and they had aright to expect every explanation front die paw w h ew conduct, WU impugned. Mr. Collett might have Mien 'nod eel!, and he cOnsidered thei.gstertee of such explana ,, dun, as he could have given full proof_t . hat.Ale. K ennek had been cognizant Of the publication. There are tour separate •• itHirei agaitnit Franks in dint - paper, which he calla a draft of these he could prove that MreKenrick ,etspitniA ant ; every one of from the ir 1 . filed ,„keewt,..4o false, f rom his conduct, or front the a u uvits %. 1 0, 41 n in the Court of King's' Bepch. The first charge was that of abetting the child in the theft she was said to have committed. In this publication the articles were stated to haVe been found under the clothes of Franks and his wife, and this was the only circumstance of any importance as leading to the inference of their having abetted the child—yet when affidavits were to be filed in the King's Bench, and when Mr. Kenrick had the strongest motives to assail the character of Franks, not a syllable was sworn in support of this tact. What is the next charge ?..--that the Magistrate, Mr. Peters, whose sheep had been stolen, had abundant proof that Franks was the thief. It certainly seems rather odd that a Magistrate should have so much regard for a What, however, and attach so little value to his own sheep,s to refuse to prosecute when he had such abundant proof. however, was the proof? It was such proof as Lord Bodies would not entertain for a moment. Perhaps Mr. Burgess might have,entertained it. The real cul prit, however, was afterwards discovered and convicted. And were they then to be told that these statements had been made bona pie ': 2 The Honourable Member for Yorkshire might say go to a Jury. In truth, there were no disputed facts for a Jury to try. The statements of Mr. Kenrick him self constituted the evidence against him. '1 hen come the charge of the piece of wood, accompanied by the assertion that Franks hi d been frequently pilfering before; of that Mr. Ken rick said he had no doubt whatever, but he never had distinct proof against him till now. Why, when the criminal informa tion was to be moved for, there was not a person who would venture to come forward and make an Affidavit, not even Mr. Kenrick himself, that Franks was a man of general bad charac ter. His Learned Friend had very skilfully considered his charge against Mr. Kenrick as three or four distinct charges— it was but one, that of a corrupt anti malicious motive, to be proved by several distinct facts. Now with respect to the appli. cation of Mr. Kenrick to Lawson, the Clerk of the Peace, he bad been mistaken in supposing that the latter bore testimony to the good character of Franks. Into this mistake, however, he had been led by the affidavit of Mr. Kenrick, in which lie stated dint in his letter to Lawson, he had stated his opinion of Franks's character. But the right of considering Mr. Kenrick as in a dilemma, if not given by words, is given by conduct. If - he thought. the character of Franks so bad, what right had he to keep back a witness in order to favour his escape from justice? Why should we wish to he excused from persecuting him ? It was curious how these things follow each other. Franks was the . abettor of theft by his daughter; he was Ithusell'a sheep. stealer—a habitual nightly thief, and for these reasons Mr. Kenrick wished to decline prosecuting him. The question, whether he could avoid prosecuting after being bound over was surely a strange question for a Judge to put to a Clerk of the Peace. The lion. and Learned Gentleman then animad verted at great length upon the conduct of Mr. Kenrick towards Franks whilst in prison. He inferred that his desire to induce Franks at first to plead guilty, anti his pretence afterwards about getting him off, arose equally from the de ire of Mr. Kenrick to get possession of the freehold. After the facts lie had stated he would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman if that man was tit to exercise the functions of a criminal Judge, if he was fit to retain the power he now had over the liberty,. the property, and eseit the lives of individuals ? What after this would be the confidence of the people in his integrity ? Would it be be lieved, that any poor man tried before him for stealing a plank, fur instance, on the prosecution of any rich anti power ful neighbour, would have a chance of obtaining equal 'us. tic° ? He 'irked, if lifter what had occurred, die Right Hon. Gentleman would have recommended him as fit for die ju dicial seat, supposing him to have had a previous promise of such recommendation ? If this question could only be an swered in the negative, it would then follow, in his judgment, that he ought now to be removed. How strange it had been to hear that this was en affitir oi' private character, as if a Judge could lose his reputation and respectability only by dis graceful conduct on the Bench. He had been told that a charge of this sort ought not to he brought forward by a lawyer.— '.chose who thought so ought immediately to move to disqualify lawyers front filling a seat in that House. After the exposition he had given, he would say—" if such a man be fit to govern, speak ?'' .He. had not met with a person, .after the dilciosures in time Court of King's &melt, but w hat had said, surely Mr. Kenrick will be removed. lie might lament the con. sequences of the resolutions which be called upon the House to adopt, upon the innocent friends end connections of Mr. Kenrick ; but these incidental consequences were not to deter the House front a great act of justice. He was, front his situa tion, to deal out the retributions of the law upon starving cul prits, who hail been led under the influence of strong tempta tion to the commission of offences ; he felt strongly,, therefore, that there ought to be sonic sympathy for the natural feelings of those who might have hereafter to be tried by Mr. Kenrick, and that some reciprocity of duties and obligations should be ac knpwledged between . the higher and the lower classes of so ciety. Ile concluded by moving— " That it appetite to this House that the charges against %Villein' Kenrick, Esq.. one of the Justices of his Majesty's . Court of Great Sessions in %t'ales had been fully proved, with the exception 9f that charge which states him to have borne - testimony to the character of John Franks, in aletter to the Clerk of time Peace for time County ofSurrey. ' ___. ___ That Wm. Kenrick has laved himself unfit for the exer cise. of judicial functions. ". That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying him to remove the said Wm. Kenrick." The ATTORNEY . ..GENERAL did not present himself to the House as the advocate of Mr. Kenrick. lle had no doubt that his Hon. and Learned ...Friend had been actuated in this proceeding by the, moat honourable and purest motives. But l e t them look at what the charge upon the table was, and at that which it had been attempted to establish. It would not be per. mitred in any Court, and he did not think it ought to be per mitted in that House to prefer one charge and to establish an. other, and a More serious one. The charge upon the table was, that alr..Kenrick had preferred an accusation, b e f ore a neigh bouring illagitstrate, , against Franks, without sufficient proof; but it contained not one word imputing corruption or malice and yet the whole aim and object of his Learned Friend had been to es:abtisli the existence of a malicious motive. His Learned Friend well knew that before another tribunal he would have been told that his address was Inapplicable to the charge. No man ought to be condemned upon a charge dif. ferent to that which he had been called upon to answer. It would be gross Injustice towards 111 r. Kenrick, were they so to proceed. How could they be sure that,il he had been charged with malice, he would not have pursued an entirely thiliaent course in meeting that charge. How could they know but that the imattructions given to the Learned Counsel who appeared at the bar on his behalf, might, in that case, have been totally dif ferent. If his Hon. and Leurned Friend consulted his own ex cellent understanding, be would immediately feel the fierce of this. But what the charge of it? - it was one which actually im puted no offence. There Wits no law which constituted it an offenceeto prefer an accusation upon insufficient evidence. To prefer an accusation upon insufficient evidence was a proceed. ing which did not according to law even afford grounds for a civil action. The charge in its terms neither contained any timing which was criminal in the eye of the law, nor any thing for which the law had provided a civil remedy. But was it proved that Mr. Kenrick had exercised any influence over Mr. Burgess, the Magistrate who committed Franks Was it even proved that he had seen hini upon - the subject ? If this is mat ter of charge against Mr. Kenrick, a similar charge might with at least equal propriety be preferred against Mr. Burgess. But it had not even been suggested that any undue influence was need in respect to the evidence upon which Franks was commit. ted. Nu attempt had been made to impeach the character of the witnesses who gave that evidence ; they told the same story to Mr. Kenrick, as they told before the Grand Jury, upon which the Grand Jury found the Bill, a nd, u p on w hi c h he had previ ously been coMmitted by Mr. Burgess. And yet the House were called upon to say that the Motive which led to this prosecution were corrupt and malicious.—(llear, hear I)—The question of the value, of the log was not one for their consideration. They had only to look at the tact and to see whether the circumstances afforded reasonable round of belief that the theft had been committed. And could any one entertain a doubt but that the property was stolen ? The lion. and Learned Gentleman re marked, upon the evidence relating to this part of the case, and confidently asked the House whether it afforded just grounds for such an investigation as the pesent ? But then it was said, ' there had been a subsequent trial and ecquitel, of which he would speak presently. It had been advanced as a charge against Mr. Kenrick, in the Morning Chronicle, that he was Influenced to the prosecution of Franks, by motives of malice arising from the refusal of the latter to sell his cottage, and by the hope of obtaining possession Of it while Franks remained in prison. Now the transactions respecting the cottage took place six years before the prosecution was thought of, enti, as Mr. K. Awed in reference to this charge, after he had altogether aban, cloned the. wish to possess it. lie had in the mean dine pur chased another cottage which answered his purpose, and refused to buy a better one situated under the same roof as - Franke.— His Learned Friend had said that Mr. Kenrick had not denied the imputation of corrupt motives ; but in the affidavit upon the table of the House, Mr. Kenrick directly swore that he was not influenced in the prosecution by malicious motives, but solely by a sense of public duty. Then it was said that another cause of Mr. Kenrick', malice arose from Franks having refused to let - Mtn make a right of way across his enclosure. - Now what were the facts of this pert of the case, as stated by Mr. Ken. rick ? He had consented to accommodate Franks, and Gates his neighbour, with a piece of . ground from a meadow of his which was -contiguous to - them cottages, in exejiange for .an equal portion of some poor land which they 'possessed upon a common. After the land had been parcelled out, Mr. Ken rick apPlied to Frank s to a ll ow a r i g h t o f way to be made across his part to enable Gates to get to the other. This Franks refused and Mr. Kenrick determined to have nothing further to do with them. Thus upon every point the affidavit of Mr. Kenrick denied the grounds upon whioh malice was charged against hies fitted which it was - competent for the accusing party to have proved by witnesses at the bar, although no attempt had been made to do it. He was therefore confident the House would see that this first part of the charge had not been made out by his Honourable and Learned Friend in such a manner as to call for their interference. It was next..charged upon Mr. Kenrick that he had published a libel upon the poor man whom he had so maliciously prosecuted; but this charge, like the other, had not been attempted•to be made out by the least shadow of evidence. It was incumbent upon the party bring,; ing a charge of this kind against another to prove it, and no to call upon the accused to.disprove by evidence whatd oni been charged by assertion. But here the House wee:Ville upon to infer the truth of a charge *antic it was brotulf7 as serted, and without any other earthleesison... 4t 4 was the first time that he had ever heard any per son standinkti the situation of a public prosecutor, put forth such an axiom, and sure be was that such a thing had never been heard of in a Court of Justice; _;Cheers.)—No evidence whatever hind been offered to prove the fact of Mr. Kenrick having authorised the publication of his letter in the Stamford Paper. The letter was written to Air. Collett, a near connection and relative of Mr. Kenrick, in answer to an inquiry about the circumstances of the case. It was then sent by Mr. Collett fur publication in Drakard's Stamford Paper, but not with the knowledge of Mr. Kenrick. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read the letter , and contended that from its general tenor the writ e r c ou ld havenot intended it for publication. Then let him ask the House, if thiii letter was not intended to be published, but only written to a private friend and relation, and if the other charges of Malicious and corrupt natures were as unfounded as he bad shewn them to be, whether they were prepared to visit Mr. K. not only with this prosecution, but with the result proposed by his lion. and Learned Friend ? With regard to the contents of this letter, the charge against Franks of having been cognizant of the theft committed by his daughter, there was ground f ur suc h a b e lief, and it appeared upon the evidence of Franks himself, that such a belief was honestly entertained at the time when the facts-oc curred, by Mr. Kenrick, and that the charge was not made upon the occasion, for the purpose of libelling Franks in this letter. As to the charge respecting the sheep, he admitted it to be un true ; but Mr. Kenrick had received the information, and be lieved it, long before this letter was written. But supposing the fact to be otherwise, he had yet to l ear n, t h at t h e House of Commons ought to come to such a d e ci s ion as t h at propose d by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, because a 'person holding a judicial situation, wrote a private letter to a relation, contain ing libellous charges against an individual with whom he bad been concerned in transactions of this nature. He had gonemi nutely into the points of evidence wh MI bore more directly upon the merits of the question, in justice to Mr. Kenrick; or, he should rather say, in justice to the case, for he had no connec tion with Air. Kenrick, and only delivered to the House the impression which the case bad made upon his mind as tofindivi dual member. No man was more anxious than he to preserve the seat of just ice- pure, and no man would be more ready to take measures to prevent its being sullied by persons whose character wi.s such as to render them unfit to administer justice to Eng lishmen. He then refered to the conduct of Mr. Kenrick in re spect to his application to the Clerk of the Peace, and to the course to he adopted at the trial, contending that it was merciful towards Franks and his unfortunate family. Upon the subject of what passed in the Court of King's Bench an erroneous opinion had gone forth that the decision of the Court was given upon the merits of the case. Nothing could be more mis taken than this opinion.' The merits were not opened at all ; only one Counsel was heard, and that against Air. Kenrick. The case was never decided upon its merit, but upon a point of form. He had been led to say thus.much partly from personal feeling. Ile kneW Air. Kenrick early in life, at the University, and at the time when his duties required his attendance in Lon don. lie was the Counsel engaged against Air. Kenrick in this case before the WM of King's Bench, and it had been said that he pressed it somewhat hardly. it was, perhaps, 'difficult to de fine the duty of Counsel, bu t he a lw a ys ' felt that it imposed the utmost exertion in behalf of those who placed their cause in his hands. He did this in addressing the Court against Air. Ken rick's application.; but if his Learned. Friend had been per mitted by the practice of the Court to reply, he believed that the greatest part of his statement would have.been answered.— Under all these views of the case which he had detailed to the House, he could not see the slightest ground for adopting the course recommended by his, Hon. and Learned Friend, and Ishould therefore m e et th e quest i on w i t h a d ec id e d negat i ve .— (Hear, hear ! and cry of " Question."). hiir E. KNATCHBULL put a question to the Attorney. General, which we could sat catch, respecting the practice of the Court of King's, in such cases as that of the applica tion made on behalf of Mr. :Kenrick. The ATTORNIP.GE NE RAL explained. Mr. DENMAN rose amidst a general call for the question, and stated that Atter what had passed he should not divide the House.—(Cheers.)—lf that cheer implicit any triumph over Idin— ui (Crs of ileac," and " No".j.—he begged to state that his opinion was entirely unaltered, and that if he had the giving away and the cout rou l o f j u di c i a l offices, I.ir. Kenrick should not continue to hold his another day.,-(Hear l)—The Lion. and Learned Gentleman made some further coniments upon the evidence, and expressed his satisfaction that both parts of the charge were fully made out. He thought that if the House had nut been annoyed. with the length to which these inquiries ne cessarily went, they would have given the case more attention, anti come to the decision which he thought it deserved. The resolutions were then put and •negutived without a division. SUPPLY REPORT. Mr. IimOODENT brought up the Report of the Resolution of the Cotnmi: tee of Supply. Sir F. O.IIM ANNE). made some observutions which were generally inaudible. We understood hire to complain of the regulations respecting the appointment of Pursers, and to recommend the claims of two widows to the Lorda of the Admiralty. Upon the first Resolution for n grant of 30,000 men for the sca service of the year. _ _ Mr. HUME said he had heard nothing yet to convince him that these large establishments were necessary. When the esti mates were framed, the Ministers could not have contemplated the circumstances under which the country was now being placed ; and he regretted that none of them were present, as he had hwould have given a promise to re cons id er the subject.op t. f they th e House would not support him, the Mini sters were right to do as they did in keeping up these enormous establishments; but he should do hi s duty and enter his pro. test against them. As far as he could understand the speech of the Ilonourable4lentleman who preceded him, it appeared ling he had taken two widows under his especial protection—' 'Ca laugh)—who had claims upon the Admiralty, but could not obtain satisfaction. It was useless for any persons to apply in that quarter who were not backed by family interest. Voting men who had the support of the aristocracy were continually hoisted over the heads of old and deserving officers, for the sake of being afterwards pensioned off' upon the State. He saw this every day, and he was sorry to say that the mass of the Nobi lity regularly put their younger sons into the army and navy in order to make provision for them by pensions paid out of the taxes exacted from a miserable and starving people. If the House would do its duty —and if there was a reformed Parlia ment it would—they would force Ministers to retrench, not only in this Estimate, but in all other branches Of expenditure. To compel therm to do this he would stop the Supplies. The Hon. Member concluded by moving an amendment, which pledged the House to a concurrence in the recommendations of economy contained in the Eighth Report of the Finance Committee of 1810. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he agreed entirely with what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman, and should divide the House upon the question. Sir 0. COCKBURN reminded the House that His Hon. Friend (Sir U. Clerk) had, upon a former night, stated the rea. son of the increase of MOO men in this vote to be the assistance given to the East India Company in prosecuting the war in India. In the present state of the country he knew not how the force could be reduced. If the House dallied upon cutti ng down the Navy, there would be less to do at the Admiralty ; but while they were expected to answer the falls of the country, they must have the means to do it. The conduct of our Navy in its difficult employments upon the stations near the new States had been such as to avoid disturbance, and yet to keep the British flag respected. if commerce was to be carried on in those quarters of the world, it must have protection ; and if protected, it would produce more to the revenue than the ex pellee which it created. There was one statement of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen of which he complained strongly, and to which he would give a direct and unqualified contradic. Lion. The Honourable •Meniber had said that it was of no use for any man to apply to the Lords of the Admi. ralty, unless he possessed family interest. This he positively denied. lie, for one, was already to hear the case of any man, high or l ow , and gave orders that all should be admitted to him. Nay he would go further, and tell the Honourable Member, that he wits more ready to receive persons who had not the recommendation of family connections.—(Hearo hear !) For the truth o f th i s b e appeale d to hi s Colleagues, and to all connected with the department.--(Hear, hear !)—lt a l. ways had been his desire to encourage to a certain extent the entrance of the sons of the Aristocracy into the Navy, because he was convinced that such a system was mot advantageous to the service. • M r • It O4MTSON supported the amendment. H e was surprised that n o Minister was in the House to account for the increase which appeared in the estimates. The Lords of the Admiralty had not given an adequate cause for the in crease. Naval force was not wanting in India. There was no utility to be derived from the employment of seamen in the Bur. mese war. Mr. CROKER said, he hall that morning receiv e d f rom t h e Commander-in. Chief in India, dispatches, stating t h at h e had collected a force on t h e Ri ver Rangoon, and WAS to prticeed mediately.with an etpedition against the enemy consisting of more than 1,000 men. This proved beyond a doubt that naval forces were useful in India. Sir C. COLE said he had recently called on the Admiralty in behalf of a meritorious officer who had two sons in the Navy, and the greatest attention was paid to his representation. A hope was held out to him that the two sons of the officer would be promoted. He thought it ought to satisfy the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, who had stated that attention at the Admiralty was only shewn to those who were patronized by. rank and power. It had been lsaid there was no necessity,for naval forces in India; but the gallant Admira from long service in India kqe‘t statement to' be incorrec t should be recollected thdt tiv lia station ex,seittied over o quarter of the globe 4--- Ir,exteede • oin A rabiath the'Paeific ocean. It had been his fortune to serve on the coast of. India with two or three frigates, and he knew the greatest services could be done by boats up rivers; but he had understood the Lord of the Admiralty as speaking of service up the Mediterranean, where the peculiar state of nations rendered a British force absolutely necessary fur the protection of commerce. 111 r. I , lrvv tr. r. supported the Amendment. 111 r. HE It RIES said, an Hon. Member had complained of the absence of Ministers. There was no necessity for an extraor dinary attendance of Ministers to answer the questions of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen. The Estimates had been drawn upon the lowest scale. The opposition to the Estimates was made with intention to stop the Supply. The Amendment moved by the Hon. Member was calculated to arrest the pro gress of any Administration, and he would ask the House. whe. ther there was any thing upon the face of the estimates to justify such an attempt. at was said the Estimates were not likethose of 1817; but the circumstances of the country had changed every year. Could any man suppose that the Committee of 1817 could see what might be the proper expence of 1826 ? Was it reasonable to suppose that an Increase in the estimates rendered necessary by the circumstances of the country was sufficient to justify the stoppage of supply ? The motion of the Hon. Gen tleman was quite unexpected, and there was no reason why the House should agree to it. _ _ Col. DA V lEg thought a case of necessity ought to be made out before any Member in that House voted a single Estimate. The Hon. Member found himself compelled to support the re• solution. He had heard that our naval force on the west coast of America was too large. Be gave notice that he should do all he could to reduce the Army Estimates. Sir F. OSCMANUY explained. Captain GORDON stated, that persons going into the Navy were obliged by the rules of the service to serve six years; then, if promoted, he had to serve 2 years as Lieutenant, and one year as Commander. After thirty years service such an officer might obtain a pension of 1301. a.year, which all must admit was hardly earned. Mr. TR EMAYNE expressed a wish for the reduction of the navy estimates. Mr. HOIHIOUSE begged to be understood that in support. ing the Amendment of his Hon. Friend he did not oppose tl - .3 Supplies to the Navy, but, on the contrary, was desirous to vote the establishment of last year. It could not be said that any Gentleman who took the line he adopted had a wish to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers. lie agreed with them on the commercial question. With a change in the currency and contracted issues it would be impossible for the people to pay the taxes of the country. It was too much when they were told in his Majesty's speech there was nothing but tranquillity, to find the Estimate's increased. For the Resolution 43 For the Amendment . 15 Majority against the Amendment —2B Upon the Estimate 1135,957/. for timber stores and other ma. terials, for building and repairing his Majesty's ships, Mr. lIVDIE objected to the expenditure of money for ship-building when they had so many ships. He wished the expence m every department of the navy reduced one-third. tTpon the sum of 898,0001. being proposed for the half-pay of officers Sir C. COLE considered it a hardship to take away half-pay from marine officers who might enter into holy orders. Mr. HUAI E said, he had originally taken up the same view of the subject, twenty-four individuals had been derived of half-pay, and he expressed a hope that his Majesty's Govern ment would place them on the same footing as officers In the army. Sit G. COCKBURN said, there was an order in the navy, under which no person Who entered into Holy Orders could re ceive, half-pay. It' they could claim it on any principle of equity, be should certainly not oppose them. The Resolution was agreed to. On the Res ilution of granting the sum of 260,0001. to make Ogood the deficiency in the funds fur defraying the charges'of ut-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital, Mr. HUME said, that some difficulties were thrown in the way of the relatives of Out-pensioners, when they applied for the payment of their arrears, and he trusted they would be lookedinto. Ch OKER was convinced that there was some mistake, but he would look into the books of the Hospital, and he felt convinced that he should be able to explain the subject to' the satisfaction of the Hon. Alember.—Adjourned at IlAt.r.pAsT TWELVE. LIST OF THE MINORITY On Mr. Ihnue's Amendment. Alleni , J. H. MOnek, J. 11. Wyvill, M. Cavendish, 11. Palmer, C. F. Whitbread S. C. Denman, 'l'. Robertson, A. Wood, Alderman Evans, Win. Russell, Lord J. TELLERS. (Irattan, J. Tremayne, J. H. Hume, Joseph Hobhouse, J. C. Taylor, M. A. Davies, Col. From the LONDON GAZETTE, Feb. 21. Crown-Qtfice, February 21, 1026. CIik,STER CIRCUIT. The Hon. Charles Warren, Chief Justice; the Hon. Thomas Jervis, the other Justice. Montfomeryskire—Thursday, March 16, at Pool. Den b ghsh ire —Wednesday, March 22, at Ruthin. Fiintshire—Tuesday, March 28, at Mold. Cheshire—Monday, April 3, at Chester. CARMARTHEN CIRCUIT. Samuel Heywood, Esq. Serjeant at Law, Chief Justice ; John Balguy, Esq. Justice. Cardigan—Monday, March 20. Haverfordwest—Saturday, March 25. Carmarthen—Friday, March 31. NORTH WALES CIRCUIT. The Hon. Jonathan Raine, Chief Justice; the Hon. Wm. Kenrick, other Justice. Anglesey—Saturday, March 18, at Mammals. Carnarvonshire—Friday, March 24, at Carnarvon. Merionethshire—Thursday, March 30, at Bala. SOUTH WALES CIRCUIT. The Hon. Michael Nolan, Chief Justice; the Hon. Robert Matthew Casherd. Radnorshire—Monday, March 20. Breconshire—Saturday, March 25. Glamorganshire, Saturday, April 1. INSOLVENTS. T. E. 'Wilson, Frith-street, Soho,_ auctioneer.—J. Thomas, Huddersfield, Yorkshire, grocer.—T. Molsey, Easton, Nor thamptonshire, baker.-0. Milner, Derby, silk manufacturer. BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED. J. Nicholas, sen. and J. Nicholas, jun., Leatherhead, Sur• rey, common brewers. H. Bippisley, Shepton Mallet, Somersetshire„ common brewer. E. B. Skelton, N. M. Skelton, and E. Skelton, Sonthamp ton, stationers. BANKRUPTS. It. Powell, Bristol, mason, to surrender March 7, at twelve,. 1 1 and April 4, at two, at the Burner Tavern, Bristol. A t t or. rues, Messrs. Poole,Greenfield, and Gamlen, Gray's Inn., square, London ; and llr. W. B. Barker, Bristol. T. Keel, Bristol, grocer, March li, 9, and April 4, at twelve at the Rummer Tavern, Bristol. Attornies, Messrs. Hicks and Braiken r id ge, B artlett ' s build i ng, Holborn, London ; and Mr. J. P. Hinton, Bristol. W. J. King, Battersea, Surrey, turpentine m e r c h ant , F e b . 28, at el even , March 7, and April 4, at ten, at the Court 'of Commissioners, London. Attornies, Messrs. W. and S. Cotton, Basingliall.street. • W. Oliver, sen. Manchester, dyer, March 4,6, and Ap r il 4, at one, a t Whi te ' s Hotel, illanchester. Attornies, Mr. J. Hampson, Manchester; and Ellis, Sons, Walmsley, and Gor. ton, Chancery -lane. B. Mott, Liverpool, corn dealer, March 4,6, and April 4, pt one, at the Neptune Hotel, Liverpool. Attornies, Mr. Ntrint. ley, Liverpool; and Messrs. Adlington, Gregory, and Faulk.. ner, Bedford.row. J. E. Beeley and J. Yeomans, Birmingham, druggists, Feb. 27, at two, 20, and April 4, at eleven, ut the Royal Hotel, Bir mingham. Attornies, Messrs. Swain, Stevens, Maples, Pelage, and Hunt, Frederick's-place, Old Jewry ; and Messrs. Webb and Dolphin, Birmingham. T. Grisdale, Whitehaven, Cumberland, timber merchant, March 18,10, and April 4, at twelve, at the Black Lion Inn, Whitehaven. Attorney, Mr. Clennell, Staples Inn; and Mr. Adamson, Whitehaven. • J. Emmunds, Worcester, leather cutter, March 3,4, and April 4, at twelve, at the Saracen's Head Inn, Worcester.— Attornies, Mr. Smith, Basinghall.street ; and Mr. Hope. Mr mingham. J. - Benson, York, wine merchant March 8, 9 and April 1, at eleven, at the Guildhall, York. Attornies, Mr. Lever, Gray's Inn-square; and Mr. Davies, York. J. Dilworth, R. M. Arthington, and R. Birkett, Lancaster, bankers, March 8, at five, 14, and April 4, at twelve, at the King's Arms Inn, Lancaster. Attormes, Mr. Norris, John street, Bedford-row; and Messrs. Thomas and Cawsthorne, Lancaster. R. Palmer ' Coleshill, Warwickshire, malster, March 6, at the Of fi ce of Mr. Burbury, Warwick, 7, and April 4, at ele ven, at the King's Arms Inn, Kenilworth, Warwickshire. At tornies, Mr. Burbury, Warwick; and Messrs. Myrick and Cox, Red Lion-square. C. Simkin And T, Simkin, Lee*, Staffordshire, mefcert 4 Feb. 21 411aeth_l, ands „ u Apti, 4 0 at eleven, at the George Inn, Le k, Staffiird. A:ttortnes, Messrs,Adlington, Gregory, and Faulkner, Bedford-row ; and Mess rs. Killmister and Challis nor, Leek. .1. Addis, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, tailor,3larch 9,9, and April 4, at eleven, at the Angel Inn, Abergavenny. Attorntes, Messrs. Gelb, Abergavenny; and Mr. Oregon', Clement's Inn, London. J. Murton Newcastle:upon-Tyne, shoemaker, March 16, 17, and April 4, at eleven, at the George Inn, Newcastle-upons Tyne. Attornies. Messrs. Swain, Stevens, Maples, Parses and Hunt,"Fredericir's-place, Old Jewry, London; andllr. Pybus, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. C. Bassani), Jermyn-street, St. James's, Westminster, oil man, Feb. 28, March 3, and April 4, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Attorney, Mr. T.. Lord, Manchestersstreet , Manchester.square. H. Woolcombe, Forest Gate, West Ham, Essex, stock dealer, Feb. 25, March 2, and April 4, at ten, at the. Court of Commissioners, London. Attorney, Mr. Westlake Clifford's Inn, London. J. 'Webb, itomsey, Southampton, tanner, March 6,8, fluid April 4, at twelve, at the Queen's Head Inn, Bonney, South ampton. A ttornies,lllr. G. B. Footner, Romeo , ; and Mr. T. Roe, Temple Chambers, Fleet-street; London. J. Graham, Gloucester-street, Queen-square, tailor, March 4,7, and April 4, at ten, at the Court of Commissioners. Itt* torney, Mr. E. Chester, Staple Inn. W. W. Haynes, Neath, Glamorganshire, banker, March 11. • 10, and April 4, at eleven, at the Public Rooms, Swansea-. Glamorganshire. Attornies, Messrs. Holnie, Frampton, Ana Loftus, New Inn, London ; and Messrs. Herrington and Jen kins, Swansea. J. Brenchley, sen. and J. Brenchley, jun. Milton, Kent, distillers, Feb. 25, March 7, and April 4, at twelve, at the Court of Commissioners. Attornies, Messrs. Clare, and Co- Frederick's-place, Old Jewry, London. C. Lucas, London, merchant, Feb. 25, March 4, at one, and April 4, at twelve, at the Court of Commissioners. Attornies , Messrs. Arundell and Miller, Bridge-street, Blackfriars. 0. Craig, Allerton-strect, Hoxton New Town, Oil and Colour-man, Feb. 28, March 7, at eleven, and April 4, at t at the Court of Commissioners. Attornies, Messrs. Knight and Fyson, Basinghall.street. J. Kingsford and G. Kingsford, Pertien, slops diets t Feb. 25, March 4, at ten, and April 4, at twelve, at the Court u , Commissioners, London. Attornies, and Noy, Great Tower-street, London. March 18, J. Coulthard, Old City Chambers, Ilishopsga,l.• street, cable and anchor merchant-March 14, J. Miles, Ow, street-road, oil and colourtnan -March 14, J.. Marshall, 11 , 1 .„af' Horse-yard, Gray's Inn-lane, box-maker-March 21, 0 . ` r. fect, jun. West Dialing, Kent, surgeon-March 21, T. Gre.e them, Liverpool, ship chandler-March 16, G. sharp, Lee ds ' cord winter,-March 18, J. Moore, Manchester, corn.;ilealer„;: March 14, T. Fidkin, Teddington, maltster-March 25, Brewster, Wade's Mill, Hertfordshire, miller-Igarch 21. c ß h r i i t t i l l g ai n e ) r at 22 M S a p r i c ce h r - 4 s , tr Spicer-street, - green , sugar broker-March 14, J. Crump, Coventry, money K t .:: vener -M web 21, R. Rainey Size-lane merchant-March 10. J. Sciaccaluga, Old Bailey, Rainey, 14, R. Halforu Orchard-etreet, St. Luke's, jeweller-March 4, 'F. Marl l P! Littlebury Mills, Essex, niealman. CFMTIFICATES-MAncu 14. J. Peace, Camberworth, Yorkshire, fancy cloth rhanu . turer-T. W. Smith . , Fencburch-street, watchmaker -S. 11:11:,. init.. Oxford-street, jeweller-J. Johnson, Ferry Whar f, hall, coal merchant. PARTNERSHIPS DISSOLVED. D. Flintofrand W. An d, Newcastie-upon-Tynet ler' curt . .—J. Birch and R. L,La, tobacco-pipe-ma nufac7 turers—ll. Hallam anti J. Hallam, Salford, tallow-chandlers*"r. C. Bellwood and T. Alawer, Louth, Lincoln, millers — D' feu and Alfred Tulley, Hackney, tea-dealers—J. Selkirk IL W. Gilpin,Rotherhithe, shipwrights--J. Ilall and T. Val' d drey, Congleton, Cheshire, silk-throwst ers .- : -W. Wellman 82',. T. Walker, Wol,verluunpton ' Staffordshire, ironmongersln Carr and C. Carr, Skipton, Yorkshire, attornies—J. D o r° o .is and J. Preston, Barton-upon-Humber, Lincolnshire , - white manufacturers--E. Crook and R. Edmondson, SkiP t° ; Yorkshire, milliners—J. Leach, and J. C. Leach, Warrilltr,.; Lancashire, hosiers—S. Burton and R. Clay, Devo_ llB street, Bishopsgate-strect, Without, printers—M. Linwoou_ 4 4 0. Cotton, Abchurch.lane, London, East India and Cem" - ; brokers—G. Edenborough and J. Truernan Pancras• Jan . de :. cotton-yarn manufacturers—J. Thorp and eo. Ch ea P s co , haberdashers, as far as ugards J. Thorv—W. Jones an! 1 , 10 ,, Liverpool, lath-cleavers—W. W. Reynoldson and Oh " o d, terfield, iron-founders—J. and T. Carpenter, Bilirhalu" clothiers—J. Procter, jun. and S. Knight, Stocktoth. „ , I nett, dealer in worsted and yarn—R. Clover and T. r• Liverpool, ship-brokers—S. Stocks, juti. anti B. Stocksb d co. cheater, manufacturers of co t t on goo d s —S. Bamford a man cl'hsaesr-t'erro,wsinlic wmwanliuletpruirnetrser,---2.C(oo)akkaesndantv.R. Aubrey, LlewellY n i: o u i ss peallwch, tinplate workers _W. Roberts and Hugh Jun. Amlwich, Anglesey, timber merchants. INDIA. (from the Supplement to -the Madras Gove'r'nment Gag lid (1 it would appear by accounts which hive been October 11.) the late accounts from Rangoon, that they were anxiouttlY)oct; ing forward to the result of the negotiations which were 3b , 0 .., - ,: to be opened between the First Minister of the tours of i'"" tate, and Sir A. Campbell. This Minister, the accounts s is had been sent down to treat for peace, fully empowered .by h a • master to do so, awl that the meeting was to take Plac e at A village 25 miles. above Prome, on the 2d of this mon th ' , 60 '• i correspondent states that a boat had been sent up the river e d tap;the Bth ult., with Colonel Tidy on hoard, and had re having met the Prilika Minister, and made the necessary ~. . rangements for the meeting of the 2d ; an armistice 11%6 also been agreed upon to continue to the 15th of this manan a The weather at Prome was tine, the place healthy, a il , the climate, in my opinion," says a correspondent, 46 tau r o: better and more pleasant than most parts of India ;" th e ccill ,i try also fcrtile'and rich, and in skilful hands might be 013 brought bY very productive. (Front the Atadras Government Gm:die of Oct. 13 . .) .„ 4t At the conference (says a correspondent) ' between Sit . ii ., 1,000 men, and to encamp within 1,000 Camphelland the Minister,each of the negotiators was to bri n g the conference to be held in the intermediate space. It °i l k , appear, however, that Sir A. Campbell was not furnisbe:is particular instructions es to the terms, and that 114 ; 10 anxiously looking for Mr. Robinson,:the comtnissioner win, was expected from Calcutta, and it was cancludetl had the i e o. structious. The armistice was published at Prome ea the ~.., • In the conference which Colonel Tidy had with the illin snc i the latter is said to have used much conciliatory lang usge ' v ia to have said, among other things, ' that the English had ona away with the hearts of all the inhabitants of the count r y' hs a yards of each otheirt; that none would again oppose us.' The army, it was e llim ' ample provisions for six months to come." ' • ' , (From the Calcutta Government Gazfite• Muarx , I°l . 1 - L.—The last intelligence from Dillon = , the fll ' o owing information : Malin" " The inhabitants of the MPerung Hills, between ,pa , pore and Kulihoo, having arisen - asainst the purroestoteet called for assistance from the formerla ce, Nur Sing..th e i n ga o left by Itajah Gumbhaer Singil . iii command at t h e to the as place, lla advanced with 300 of - the Munrtiur•tt .9170 0 Y e f . . 7, the he could co.iect i.om the country' Iw, nt volunteers intr as latter district and after taking possession of three h vioo. had atocicad lunsgr near the town of Kubboo, whr:be Shaft • ctipied by a force of 300 Burmahs, and 300 natives ° co ming Country. The Shins had intimated an intention ), sp ot» over to ante he or. Sing, and it was suspected that with tile: t L oo ksde! would shortly be in possession of the town an"Lt sii i : AVs. No reinforcements hail been received by the enemY' tr.L.,'„ in tb,i and it lore gives woo understood that none could be spared I"' .. -. : quarter,"